EU earmarks €30 billion for Blockchain research projects

The EU has announced it has earmarked funds totalling €30 billion for investment in blockchain research and development, in the latest boost to blockchain technology to emerge from the continent.

Delivered as part of the Horizon 2020 programme, which aims to invest in strategically important technologies and innovations, the funding commitment was announced by the European Commission this week, representing the latest tranche of support from the EU for blockchain projects and development.

The additional funding comes on top of the €77 billion the fund has already invested in a number of other causes, including in environmental, humanitarian and security fields, alongside support for distributed ledger technology.

The funding will be used to further research into blockchain, including into potential end applications for the technology across a range of industries. The decision to include blockchain projects in the latest round of funding is in keeping with the EU’s previous support for the emerging technology.

The Horizon 2020 programme has already provided €5 million worth of funding from the EU for blockchain projects, with the latest commitment looking to build on these previous efforts. The EU has also previously established research committees to examine the impact of blockchain, and how it can be used across the breadth of government and private sectors .

The EU Commission has been amongst the technology’s most vocal supporters in recent years, instigating its own research, as well as supporting the development of specific applications, including a project to create an EU-wide blockchain database of public company data.

In September, amendments to the draft EU budget bill were proposed, which could see further blockchain projects initiated on behalf of the European Commission, including plans to use blockchain technology as a payment rail across the bloc, as part of a project to role out free WiFi throughout the European Union.

“As a starting point, the project will aim at underpinning the voucher scheme of the Wifi4EU project with blockchain technology, allowing for transparent and traceable payment of EU funds to the private companies, which install the Wifi4EU infrastructure. It will also provide the citizens with the tools to examine the transactions registered in the ledger. It will rely on Open Source software and seek collaboration with Member States for providing blockchain services (also known as Govchains).”

EU earmarks €30 billion for Blockchain research projects

The EU has announced it has earmarked funds totalling €30 billion for investment in blockchain research and development, in the latest boost to blockchain technology to emerge from the continent.

Delivered as part of the Horizon 2020 programme, which aims to invest in strategically important technologies and innovations, the funding commitment was announced by the European Commission this week, representing the latest tranche of support from the EU for blockchain projects and development.

The additional funding comes on top of the €77 billion the fund has already invested in a number of other causes, including in environmental, humanitarian and security fields, alongside support for distributed ledger technology.

The funding will be used to further research into blockchain, including into potential end applications for the technology across a range of industries. The decision to include blockchain projects in the latest round of funding is in keeping with the EU’s previous support for the emerging technology.

The Horizon 2020 programme has already provided €5 million worth of funding from the EU for blockchain projects, with the latest commitment looking to build on these previous efforts. The EU has also previously established research committees to examine the impact of blockchain, and how it can be used across the breadth of government and private sectors .

The EU Commission has been amongst the technology’s most vocal supporters in recent years, instigating its own research, as well as supporting the development of specific applications, including a project to create an EU-wide blockchain database of public company data.

In September, amendments to the draft EU budget bill were proposed, which could see further blockchain projects initiated on behalf of the European Commission, including plans to use blockchain technology as a payment rail across the bloc, as part of a project to role out free WiFi throughout the European Union.

“As a starting point, the project will aim at underpinning the voucher scheme of the Wifi4EU project with blockchain technology, allowing for transparent and traceable payment of EU funds to the private companies, which install the Wifi4EU infrastructure. It will also provide the citizens with the tools to examine the transactions registered in the ledger. It will rely on Open Source software and seek collaboration with Member States for providing blockchain services (also known as Govchains).”

Startup opportunity: budding entrepreneurs should look at renewable energy for blockchain mining

This marriage has to happen at some point.

Ironically, although blockchain technology can be used to optimize the distribution of energy, blockchains themselves use a lot of electricity. And as they make it to mainstream industry use, scaling entails a proportionate growth in energy consumption. This conundrum has not gone unnoticed, with some saying blockchains are “energy hogs.”

In fact, several studies have even attempted to compare the energy consumption of blockchain mining with the traditional financial system in its entirety. Some assert that Bitcoin and Ethereum mining combined consume the same amount of energy as Jordan, Iceland, and Syria.

Regardless of whether this is true or not, there’s no reason why we can’t think forward and consider the industry’s sustainability before any substantial problems are even proven. While blockchain mining does require a lot of energy, more and more developments rise in the renewable energy sector, making it more reliable and stable. It’s only a matter of time before clean energy supply becomes a very convenient, responsible, and substantially profitable ally to blockchain mining. A marriage between these two is a pleasant inevitability. The question is: which startups will take part in making this happen?

Although the movement of the cryptocurrency trading market attracts more and more people, supporting infrastructure is also in need of newcomers. There’s a huge deficiency in entrepreneurs who intend to get serious on building projects related to blockchains.

In an article for Greentech Media, Tam Hunt, owner of Community Renewable Solutions LLC and author of Solar: Why Our Energy Future Is So Bright outlines how a tie-up between solar power and Bitcoin mining could be very profitable: you don’t even need to find buyers for the energy you produce—they are converted to bitcoins on their own. Instant “solar-powered money,” as some put it. Some refute this scenario, but a few startups (and individuals) have already been proving Hunt’s point for years now.

Nasty Mining was established in 2012 specifically for this purpose: they are mining BTC’s using wind and solar energy. There’s also HydroMiner, which as its name suggests, harnesses hydropower to mine cryptocurrencies. Motherboard recently featured Berlin-based artist Julian Oliver, whose “wind-powered mining rig literally pulls money from thin air,” a project he calls Harvest.

And although these people had a head start in the game, remember that there is an entire world in need of supporting infrastructure. There’s no reason budding entrepreneurs can’t get in on the advocacy, particularly in regions of the world where there’s heavy blockchain mining going on (or heavy mining activity anticipated) with no established renewable energy providers.

Definitely there is a market waiting to be served, although this isn’t to say taking a piece of that pie would be an easy task. But it is definitely an effort worth taking a shot at, both for profit and for the greater good.

Startup opportunity: budding entrepreneurs should look at renewable energy for blockchain mining

This marriage has to happen at some point.

Ironically, although blockchain technology can be used to optimize the distribution of energy, blockchains themselves use a lot of electricity. And as they make it to mainstream industry use, scaling entails a proportionate growth in energy consumption. This conundrum has not gone unnoticed, with some saying blockchains are “energy hogs.”

In fact, several studies have even attempted to compare the energy consumption of blockchain mining with the traditional financial system in its entirety. Some assert that Bitcoin and Ethereum mining combined consume the same amount of energy as Jordan, Iceland, and Syria.

Regardless of whether this is true or not, there’s no reason why we can’t think forward and consider the industry’s sustainability before any substantial problems are even proven. While blockchain mining does require a lot of energy, more and more developments rise in the renewable energy sector, making it more reliable and stable. It’s only a matter of time before clean energy supply becomes a very convenient, responsible, and substantially profitable ally to blockchain mining. A marriage between these two is a pleasant inevitability. The question is: which startups will take part in making this happen?

Although the movement of the cryptocurrency trading market attracts more and more people, supporting infrastructure is also in need of newcomers. There’s a huge deficiency in entrepreneurs who intend to get serious on building projects related to blockchains.

In an article for Greentech Media, Tam Hunt, owner of Community Renewable Solutions LLC and author of Solar: Why Our Energy Future Is So Bright outlines how a tie-up between solar power and Bitcoin mining could be very profitable: you don’t even need to find buyers for the energy you produce—they are converted to bitcoins on their own. Instant “solar-powered money,” as some put it. Some refute this scenario, but a few startups (and individuals) have already been proving Hunt’s point for years now.

Nasty Mining was established in 2012 specifically for this purpose: they are mining BTC’s using wind and solar energy. There’s also HydroMiner, which as its name suggests, harnesses hydropower to mine cryptocurrencies. Motherboard recently featured Berlin-based artist Julian Oliver, whose “wind-powered mining rig literally pulls money from thin air,” a project he calls Harvest.

And although these people had a head start in the game, remember that there is an entire world in need of supporting infrastructure. There’s no reason budding entrepreneurs can’t get in on the advocacy, particularly in regions of the world where there’s heavy blockchain mining going on (or heavy mining activity anticipated) with no established renewable energy providers.

Definitely there is a market waiting to be served, although this isn’t to say taking a piece of that pie would be an easy task. But it is definitely an effort worth taking a shot at, both for profit and for the greater good.

Bitcoin ABC statement on the Nov 2017 hard fork upgrade

On or before November 1st, Bitcoin ABC will publish a new software version that contains an updated Difficulty Adjustment Algorithm (DAA).

This is a change to the Bitcoin Cash consensus rules, but the change does not activate until November 13th.  This is a hard fork, so exchanges, wallets, and other software need to upgrade before November 13th.

We have been in communication with Bitcoin Cash miners and they are expecting this upgrade.

The original Bitcoin Cash “EDA” allowed Bitcoin Cash to survive as a minority chain but produces wild fluctuations of hashrate. This is problematic because it prevents consistently fast confirmations for users, and radically shifts the coin issuance schedule.

Several proposals to improve the DAA were put forth  We appreciate these proposals and have reviewed them all.  After careful consideration, we have made the decision to implement a proposal from Bitcoin ABC lead developer Amaury Sechet (more details on this proposal below).

Our decision to choose one specific proposal was not easy, because Bitcoin Cash has several independent development teams, and there was a great deal of deliberation between developers from the different groups.

We have the utmost respect for the all developers involved in the discussions, but only one algorithm could be chosen, and a timely decision was required.

Therefore, we decided to take a scientific approach and utilized two impartial and unconnected testing teams: Bitprim and nChain.  These teams conducted their tests separately and came to the same conclusion of which algorithm was most appropriate.

In the future, consensus level changes should have more planning, as well as a process to facilitate cross-team communication.  We look forward to working with other teams to define and hone that process in the months and years to come.

The top three algorithms that were tested include “D578” from Neil Booth, “D601” from Amaury Sechet, and “D622” from Tom Harding.

All 3 produced similar results in our own testing, and all 3 produced mean block times of approximately 600 seconds, a colossal improvement over the current code.Synopses from Bitprim and nChain are as follows:

BitPrim: “Tom and Amaury’s proposals are very similar in performance.  Amaury’s proposal has better chances to get network consensus”

nChain: “D601 is the logical choice.  D622  is 3.1% (+/- 1.2% at 95% CI) better in most instances, but there are edge cases against it.  For example a large miner can set fluctuations into the timing”

We acknowledge that D601 (proposal from Amaury Sechet) may not necessarily have the highest performance, but since all 3 had similar performance, D601 was selected because it appears to have the least risk.

Algorithm

The new DAA algorithm seeks to accomplish the following objectives:

1. Adjust difficulty to hash rate to target a mean block interval of 600 seconds.
2. Avoid sudden changes in difficulty when hash rate is fairly stable.
3. Adjust difficulty rapidly when hash rate changes rapidly.
4. Avoid oscillations from feedback between hash rate and difficulty.
5. Be resilient to attacks such as timestamp manipulation.

This algorithm is based on a 144-period simple moving average.  The difficulty is adjusted each block, based on the amount of work done and the elapsed time of the previous 144 blocks.

To compute the difficulty, we begin with the three topmost blocks, and choose the one with the median timestamp of the three.  Next, the process is repeated with blocks 144, 145, and 146 (blocks of 144-146 height less than the current) and a median timestamp block is again chosen from those 3.

From these 2 blocks roughly 144 blocks apart, we define W as the amount of work done between the blocks, and T as the elapsed time between the blocks.  A high-low filter is applied so that T has maximum value of 2 days and a minimum value of .5 days.  This prevents difficulty from changing too abruptly. (Normally 144 blocks takes approximately 1 day).

We can then compute:
Wn = W * ExpectedBlockTime / T .
G = (2^256 / Wn) – 1

 This is our difficulty target.  Lastly, a final filter is applied to enforce a maximal target.

Activation of the new consensus rules will be done on a median time stamp basis on blocks that occur after timestamp 1510600000, which corresponds to November 13th, 2:06 PM GMT.  This activation code has been merged. 

The exact time of upgrade will depend on the timestamp of the blocks mined after this timestamp.

Upgrading the Network

Bitcoin ABC will take steps to contact major exchanges and wallet providers.  All assistance in this effort is welcome.  You can help by contacting exchanges, wallet providers, and other ecosystem participants, and letting them know they should upgrade their software or run an updated version of Bitcoin ABC or other compatible software.

On a final note, Bitcoin ABC is committed to the values of decentralized development.  We strive to be a leading implementation and drive innovation and progress, but we do not wish to be THE leader, as we believe there should never be one singular authority.

Although this time it is Bitcoin ABC’s proposal that is being put forth to the miners, we are confident that in time, other development teams will also see their ideas implemented as we move forward together as a united community.

Bitcoin ABC statement on the Nov 2017 hard fork upgrade

On or before November 1st, Bitcoin ABC will publish a new software version that contains an updated Difficulty Adjustment Algorithm (DAA).

This is a change to the Bitcoin Cash consensus rules, but the change does not activate until November 13th.  This is a hard fork, so exchanges, wallets, and other software need to upgrade before November 13th.

We have been in communication with Bitcoin Cash miners and they are expecting this upgrade.

The original Bitcoin Cash “EDA” allowed Bitcoin Cash to survive as a minority chain but produces wild fluctuations of hashrate. This is problematic because it prevents consistently fast confirmations for users, and radically shifts the coin issuance schedule.

Several proposals to improve the DAA were put forth  We appreciate these proposals and have reviewed them all.  After careful consideration, we have made the decision to implement a proposal from Bitcoin ABC lead developer Amaury Sechet (more details on this proposal below).

Our decision to choose one specific proposal was not easy, because Bitcoin Cash has several independent development teams, and there was a great deal of deliberation between developers from the different groups.

We have the utmost respect for the all developers involved in the discussions, but only one algorithm could be chosen, and a timely decision was required.

Therefore, we decided to take a scientific approach and utilized two impartial and unconnected testing teams: Bitprim and nChain.  These teams conducted their tests separately and came to the same conclusion of which algorithm was most appropriate.

In the future, consensus level changes should have more planning, as well as a process to facilitate cross-team communication.  We look forward to working with other teams to define and hone that process in the months and years to come.

The top three algorithms that were tested include “D578” from Neil Booth, “D601” from Amaury Sechet, and “D622” from Tom Harding.

All 3 produced similar results in our own testing, and all 3 produced mean block times of approximately 600 seconds, a colossal improvement over the current code.Synopses from Bitprim and nChain are as follows:

BitPrim: “Tom and Amaury’s proposals are very similar in performance.  Amaury’s proposal has better chances to get network consensus”

nChain: “D601 is the logical choice.  D622  is 3.1% (+/- 1.2% at 95% CI) better in most instances, but there are edge cases against it.  For example a large miner can set fluctuations into the timing”

We acknowledge that D601 (proposal from Amaury Sechet) may not necessarily have the highest performance, but since all 3 had similar performance, D601 was selected because it appears to have the least risk.

Algorithm

The new DAA algorithm seeks to accomplish the following objectives:

1. Adjust difficulty to hash rate to target a mean block interval of 600 seconds.
2. Avoid sudden changes in difficulty when hash rate is fairly stable.
3. Adjust difficulty rapidly when hash rate changes rapidly.
4. Avoid oscillations from feedback between hash rate and difficulty.
5. Be resilient to attacks such as timestamp manipulation.

This algorithm is based on a 144-period simple moving average.  The difficulty is adjusted each block, based on the amount of work done and the elapsed time of the previous 144 blocks.

To compute the difficulty, we begin with the three topmost blocks, and choose the one with the median timestamp of the three.  Next, the process is repeated with blocks 144, 145, and 146 (blocks of 144-146 height less than the current) and a median timestamp block is again chosen from those 3.

From these 2 blocks roughly 144 blocks apart, we define W as the amount of work done between the blocks, and T as the elapsed time between the blocks.  A high-low filter is applied so that T has maximum value of 2 days and a minimum value of .5 days.  This prevents difficulty from changing too abruptly. (Normally 144 blocks takes approximately 1 day).

We can then compute:
Wn = W * ExpectedBlockTime / T .
G = (2^256 / Wn) – 1

 This is our difficulty target.  Lastly, a final filter is applied to enforce a maximal target.

Activation of the new consensus rules will be done on a median time stamp basis on blocks that occur after timestamp 1510600000, which corresponds to November 13th, 2:06 PM GMT.  This activation code has been merged. 

The exact time of upgrade will depend on the timestamp of the blocks mined after this timestamp.

Upgrading the Network

Bitcoin ABC will take steps to contact major exchanges and wallet providers.  All assistance in this effort is welcome.  You can help by contacting exchanges, wallet providers, and other ecosystem participants, and letting them know they should upgrade their software or run an updated version of Bitcoin ABC or other compatible software.

On a final note, Bitcoin ABC is committed to the values of decentralized development.  We strive to be a leading implementation and drive innovation and progress, but we do not wish to be THE leader, as we believe there should never be one singular authority.

Although this time it is Bitcoin ABC’s proposal that is being put forth to the miners, we are confident that in time, other development teams will also see their ideas implemented as we move forward together as a united community.

Why Proof of Work works: It’s the economics, not just cryptography

Although it is a combination of cryptography and mathematics, Bitcoin’s solution to the consensus problem is deeply rooted in economic principles.

One of the little-known aspects of Bitcoin is Proof of Work (PoW), where the probability of mining a block depends on the work done by the mine. This creates a distributed trustless consensus and solve the double-spend problem.

In PoW, the probability of mining a block depends on the work done by the miner. Mining activities, however, require sizeable investments these days, as mining equipment moves from GPU to ASIC. This is one of the reasons why alternate proof of work systems have started emerging.

But there is no meaningful alternative to PoW, at least for the foreseeable future. And that’s because the system solves for the problem using economic principles. To quote developer Paul Sztorc, “Proof-of-Work exists because money is being created. It is, then, impossible to ‘create a new form of money’ without invoking Proof-of-Work.”

Writer Sumanth Neppalli also explained how Proof of Work “discourages collusion of actors” because unlike Proof of Stake, where the creator of a new block is chosen in a deterministic way, PoW is “a global decentralized free market that cannot be influenced by any action other than investment into the network.”

“The security isn’t the computing power but is actually the economic investment behind the computing power. As the network gains more value, it incentivizes more people to join the network and further decentralize the network increasing the cost to reverse transactions,” Neppalli wrote in a Medium post. “The distinction from proof of stake solution as has been proposed comes in the requirement to constantly reinvest. A proof of stake system requires a single investment. Once this investment is created, the system is incentivized towards the protection of the earlier investment.”

Neppalli’s Medium post, which analyzes nChain chief scientist Dr. Craig Wright’s paper, “PoW as it relates to the theory of the firm,” can be read here.

Why Proof of Work works: It’s the economics, not just cryptography

Although it is a combination of cryptography and mathematics, Bitcoin’s solution to the consensus problem is deeply rooted in economic principles.

One of the little-known aspects of Bitcoin is Proof of Work (PoW), where the probability of mining a block depends on the work done by the mine. This creates a distributed trustless consensus and solve the double-spend problem.

In PoW, the probability of mining a block depends on the work done by the miner. Mining activities, however, require sizeable investments these days, as mining equipment moves from GPU to ASIC. This is one of the reasons why alternate proof of work systems have started emerging.

But there is no meaningful alternative to PoW, at least for the foreseeable future. And that’s because the system solves for the problem using economic principles. To quote developer Paul Sztorc, “Proof-of-Work exists because money is being created. It is, then, impossible to ‘create a new form of money’ without invoking Proof-of-Work.”

Writer Sumanth Neppalli also explained how Proof of Work “discourages collusion of actors” because unlike Proof of Stake, where the creator of a new block is chosen in a deterministic way, PoW is “a global decentralized free market that cannot be influenced by any action other than investment into the network.”

“The security isn’t the computing power but is actually the economic investment behind the computing power. As the network gains more value, it incentivizes more people to join the network and further decentralize the network increasing the cost to reverse transactions,” Neppalli wrote in a Medium post. “The distinction from proof of stake solution as has been proposed comes in the requirement to constantly reinvest. A proof of stake system requires a single investment. Once this investment is created, the system is incentivized towards the protection of the earlier investment.”

Neppalli’s Medium post, which analyzes nChain chief scientist Dr. Craig Wright’s paper, “PoW as it relates to the theory of the firm,” can be read here.

Using virtual currencies in Vietnam will now land you a $9000 penalty

No mention of mining and blockchain technology in its entirety, however.

Vietnam is now officially a no-fly zone for virtual currencies: the State Bank of Vietnam has made it clear that supply, trade, or any activity involving cryptocurrencies are prohibited in the country.

“Bitcoin virtual currency and other similar is not lawful means of payment in Vietnam; The issuance, supply, use of bitcoin and other similar virtual currency as a means of payment is prohibited in Vietnam,” they wrote on their website. Getting involved in any cryptocurrency within their jurisdiction will be subject to a fine of around $6,000 to almost $9,000.

The release, however, does not mention any grounds for the decision, nor does it mention anything about cryptocurrency mining or the underlying technology behind them, blockchains. This adds Vietnam along the lines of China and Indonesia, who have explicitly imposed a ban on cryptocurrencies, with Indonesia issuing a threat that anyone using it “will be dealt with.”

It seems decision-making on cryptocurrency has been making its rounds in Asian countries this year. Earlier, Philippine central bank Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) issued guidelines on virtual currencies. And while the legislation is not yet fully comprehensive, BSP deputy director Melchor Plabasan is taking a positive stance: “It’s like any other monetary instrument [and even] an investment instrument. There are risks but essentially, it can be managed. If you want something that is fast, near real-time and convenient then there’s the benefit of using virtual currencies like bitcoin.”

Japan, meanwhile, has been fully supportive of cryptocurrencies and now holds the largest chunk of the bitcoin market globally. Similarly, the managing director of the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) Ravi Menon, says they have no plans of regulating cryptocurrencies at the moment, and will instead focus their efforts on inspecting questionable activities surrounding cryptocurrencies.

“We’ve taken the approach that the currency itself does not pose the risk that warrants regulation. It is a known fact that cryptocurrencies are quite often abused for illicit financing purposes, so we do want to have AML/CFT controls in place. So those requirements apply to the activity around cryptocurrency, rather than the cryptocurrency itself,” Menon said.

Using virtual currencies in Vietnam will now land you a $9000 penalty

No mention of mining and blockchain technology in its entirety, however.

Vietnam is now officially a no-fly zone for virtual currencies: the State Bank of Vietnam has made it clear that supply, trade, or any activity involving cryptocurrencies are prohibited in the country.

“Bitcoin virtual currency and other similar is not lawful means of payment in Vietnam; The issuance, supply, use of bitcoin and other similar virtual currency as a means of payment is prohibited in Vietnam,” they wrote on their website. Getting involved in any cryptocurrency within their jurisdiction will be subject to a fine of around $6,000 to almost $9,000.

The release, however, does not mention any grounds for the decision, nor does it mention anything about cryptocurrency mining or the underlying technology behind them, blockchains. This adds Vietnam along the lines of China and Indonesia, who have explicitly imposed a ban on cryptocurrencies, with Indonesia issuing a threat that anyone using it “will be dealt with.”

It seems decision-making on cryptocurrency has been making its rounds in Asian countries this year. Earlier, Philippine central bank Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) issued guidelines on virtual currencies. And while the legislation is not yet fully comprehensive, BSP deputy director Melchor Plabasan is taking a positive stance: “It’s like any other monetary instrument [and even] an investment instrument. There are risks but essentially, it can be managed. If you want something that is fast, near real-time and convenient then there’s the benefit of using virtual currencies like bitcoin.”

Japan, meanwhile, has been fully supportive of cryptocurrencies and now holds the largest chunk of the bitcoin market globally. Similarly, the managing director of the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) Ravi Menon, says they have no plans of regulating cryptocurrencies at the moment, and will instead focus their efforts on inspecting questionable activities surrounding cryptocurrencies.

“We’ve taken the approach that the currency itself does not pose the risk that warrants regulation. It is a known fact that cryptocurrencies are quite often abused for illicit financing purposes, so we do want to have AML/CFT controls in place. So those requirements apply to the activity around cryptocurrency, rather than the cryptocurrency itself,” Menon said.

Credibility and Plagiarism

Speaking with Dr Wright earlier this year, he mentioned he was looking forward to coming out publicly later this year. And he has certainly done just that. But it was never going to be without controversy.

Certainly ever since stepping back out into the public light, he has dealt with relentless attacks on his character, time and time again. None of this was unexpected.

There are many elements, particularly from Core’s headquarters that would like to see Dr Wright disappear again. His vision for Bitcoin, marries up with what many big blockers have for a long time been fighting for.

Being in a prominent position among, within a prominent blockchain company, has enabled Dr Wright to push forward his shared plan for a global, frictionless, electronic cash currency. Ironically, it is the sheer principle that Bitcoin itself was founded upon.

The problem with being vocal on the subject is that it pits you in direct competition with Blockstream, who have invested many millions of dollars into seeing their own business model, work with Bitcoin. What is the business model? Well CEO Adam Back recently commented on Blockstream’s plan to sell side-chains, taking transaction fees, and charging monthly fees… If Dr Wright’s fight for Bitcoin BCH holds water, then it is in direct competition with Segwit1x – absolutely. A Bitcoin that exists without fees, absolutely trumps a version that requires fees. On the other hand, if Blockstream and Core are correct, that is if big blocks don’t work, then Core is right, and Blockstream’s business model may have a future.

Can big blocks propagate safely without centralizing Bitcoin?

That answer will be revealed very soon at the Scaling Bitcoin conference next week, and I will be more than happy to report on the presentation of results, straight from HQ.

But the rivalry has come with numerous, relentless attacks on Dr Wright. Each time, directly attacking his credibility. The often over-stated line is “known fraud”. If it is so known, why the relentless need to constantly vilify the man.

There is a very interesting summary of Plato’s Ring of Gyges, which you can read about here. But in summary, the person who is ‘just’ and the one who is ‘unjust’, may not be so black and white, in fact, it can very much be the reverse.

The latest attack on Dr Wright’s credibility accuse him of plagiarising entire sections of work in his book “The IT Regulatory and Standards Compliance Handbook”. The original accusation which Dr Wright has already rebutted, has resurfaced on the Core-aligned form r/bitcoin and attempts to defame his work.

The accusation of plagiarism carries a lot of negative implication. For one to accuse, you would have to have concrete evidence, and a non-bias predisposition.

Wikipedia’s first line on plagiarism states “Plagiarism is the “wrongful appropriation” and “stealing and publication” of another author’s “language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions” and the representation of them as one’s own original work.”

The dictionary definition is consistent: “the practice of taking someone else’s work or ideas and passing them off as one’s own.”

The key in this determination is whether or not, one person’s work, is attempted in being passed of as another’s.

In academia in particular, this can be a real issue. Importantly, to build knowledge, we constantly have to build on somebody else’s work. This does not mean, we claim someone else’s inventions or writings as our own. It means, that all new concepts, inventions, and ideas, inherently, build upon other people’s work to begin with. This is how knowledge gains traction in the real world.

The concept isn’t anything new, nor is it some elusive art. Every published paper, or book, of this nature, generally comes with a list of references – that is – other people’s work which we build upon.

In effect, plagiarism is not plagiarism if you have referenced the source material. If the source material is referenced, then it cannot by definition, be deemed as plagiarism, unless there is a clear contradiction, where the author is intentionally trying to claim credit, and attempts to conceal attribution.

Credibility and Plagiarism

In Dr Wright’s case, he does not attempt to conceal attribution. References are clearly listed.

To illustrate this another way, suppose you invent a tri-cycle, but use a bicycle as the base element of work. Many of the mechanics would be very similar, but some would be different. A large portion of work would actually stem from the inventor of a bicycle. Adding a third wheel, changes the dynamics of many things, including the physics and safety of the invention. But mechanically, much remains similar. Provided you give attribution where necessary to the inventor of the bicycle, you have not at all plagiarised.

In fact, it is absolutely necessary to build on other works in order to complete your own.

Bitcoin itself was built on many other people’s works from before hand. In fact, an early version of the Block chain had already existed… The difference with Bitcoin however was that it improved on it, and essentially turned it into a new, more workable invention.

The ‘proto-blockchain’ was actually based on units of ‘coin’ moving from address to address. Satoshi fundamentally changed this to be a calculation of inputs and outputs. A simple change in idea, which fundamentally changed everything in-turn.

Knowledge builds. We reference, we re-use, and we improve.

Eli Afram
@justicemate.

Credibility and Plagiarism

Speaking with Dr Wright earlier this year, he mentioned he was looking forward to coming out publicly later this year. And he has certainly done just that. But it was never going to be without controversy.

Certainly ever since stepping back out into the public light, he has dealt with relentless attacks on his character, time and time again. None of this was unexpected.

There are many elements, particularly from Core’s headquarters that would like to see Dr Wright disappear again. His vision for Bitcoin, marries up with what many big blockers have for a long time been fighting for.

Being in a prominent position among, within a prominent blockchain company, has enabled Dr Wright to push forward his shared plan for a global, frictionless, electronic cash currency. Ironically, it is the sheer principle that Bitcoin itself was founded upon.

The problem with being vocal on the subject is that it pits you in direct competition with Blockstream, who have invested many millions of dollars into seeing their own business model, work with Bitcoin. What is the business model? Well CEO Adam Back recently commented on Blockstream’s plan to sell side-chains, taking transaction fees, and charging monthly fees… If Dr Wright’s fight for Bitcoin BCH holds water, then it is in direct competition with Segwit1x – absolutely. A Bitcoin that exists without fees, absolutely trumps a version that requires fees. On the other hand, if Blockstream and Core are correct, that is if big blocks don’t work, then Core is right, and Blockstream’s business model may have a future.

Can big blocks propagate safely without centralizing Bitcoin?

That answer will be revealed very soon at the Scaling Bitcoin conference next week, and I will be more than happy to report on the presentation of results, straight from HQ.

But the rivalry has come with numerous, relentless attacks on Dr Wright. Each time, directly attacking his credibility. The often over-stated line is “known fraud”. If it is so known, why the relentless need to constantly vilify the man.

There is a very interesting summary of Plato’s Ring of Gyges, which you can read about here. But in summary, the person who is ‘just’ and the one who is ‘unjust’, may not be so black and white, in fact, it can very much be the reverse.

The latest attack on Dr Wright’s credibility accuse him of plagiarising entire sections of work in his book “The IT Regulatory and Standards Compliance Handbook”. The original accusation which Dr Wright has already rebutted, has resurfaced on the Core-aligned form r/bitcoin and attempts to defame his work.

The accusation of plagiarism carries a lot of negative implication. For one to accuse, you would have to have concrete evidence, and a non-bias predisposition.

Wikipedia’s first line on plagiarism states “Plagiarism is the “wrongful appropriation” and “stealing and publication” of another author’s “language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions” and the representation of them as one’s own original work.”

The dictionary definition is consistent: “the practice of taking someone else’s work or ideas and passing them off as one’s own.”

The key in this determination is whether or not, one person’s work, is attempted in being passed of as another’s.

In academia in particular, this can be a real issue. Importantly, to build knowledge, we constantly have to build on somebody else’s work. This does not mean, we claim someone else’s inventions or writings as our own. It means, that all new concepts, inventions, and ideas, inherently, build upon other people’s work to begin with. This is how knowledge gains traction in the real world.

The concept isn’t anything new, nor is it some elusive art. Every published paper, or book, of this nature, generally comes with a list of references – that is – other people’s work which we build upon.

In effect, plagiarism is not plagiarism if you have referenced the source material. If the source material is referenced, then it cannot by definition, be deemed as plagiarism, unless there is a clear contradiction, where the author is intentionally trying to claim credit, and attempts to conceal attribution.

Credibility and Plagiarism

In Dr Wright’s case, he does not attempt to conceal attribution. References are clearly listed.

To illustrate this another way, suppose you invent a tri-cycle, but use a bicycle as the base element of work. Many of the mechanics would be very similar, but some would be different. A large portion of work would actually stem from the inventor of a bicycle. Adding a third wheel, changes the dynamics of many things, including the physics and safety of the invention. But mechanically, much remains similar. Provided you give attribution where necessary to the inventor of the bicycle, you have not at all plagiarised.

In fact, it is absolutely necessary to build on other works in order to complete your own.

Bitcoin itself was built on many other people’s works from before hand. In fact, an early version of the Block chain had already existed… The difference with Bitcoin however was that it improved on it, and essentially turned it into a new, more workable invention.

The ‘proto-blockchain’ was actually based on units of ‘coin’ moving from address to address. Satoshi fundamentally changed this to be a calculation of inputs and outputs. A simple change in idea, which fundamentally changed everything in-turn.

Knowledge builds. We reference, we re-use, and we improve.

Eli Afram
@justicemate.